Instead he is depicted as a corrupt and incompetent general who lost half of Mexico.

It is unfair to depict him as an incompetent general since he was one of the most able generals of Mexico at the time. This is why he was called to duty every time that Mexico was threatened by a foreign invader.

He was also really good at getting into power. He was president of Mexico something like 11 times. Unfortunately he wasn't into governing; getting there was the thrill.

And he had an amazing sense to where the political winds and power was blowing. He was a champion of liberals during some periods and conservatives in others.

Instead he is depicted as a corrupt and incompetent general who lost half of Mexico.

It is unfair to depict him as an incompetent general since he was one of the most able generals of Mexico at the time. This is why he was called to duty every time that Mexico was threatened by a foreign invader.

He was also really good at getting into power. He was president of Mexico something like 11 times. Unfortunately he wasn't into governing; getting there was the thrill.

And he had an amazing sense to where the political winds and power was blowing. He was a champion of liberals during some periods and conservatives in others.

But he is still not regarded as a talented general, right? Do Mexican people blame him in the defeat in Mexican-American war?

Yes, they blame him for the lost of Texas and the defeat in the Mexican-American war. I agree that he is mostly responsible for Texas; with the Mexican-American war, he is only partially responsible from my point of view.

In fact, most of his positive traits and successes are overshadowed by the negative view that Mexicans have for him.

Yes, I read this as well. In was in a historical comic strip when I read about it. During one of many exiles, he took with him chicle gum, which was the sap from a Mexican tree, with to the U.S.. Santa Anna meets a man called Thomas Adams, to whom he suggests that he could make tires out of this gum, which the people in Yucatan chewed. Thomas Adams tried, but failed. He still had tons of chicle left, and one day he saw a girl asking for chewing gum. He decided to sell the chicle left as chewing gum.

The lost of Texas showed his incompetent.He tactics was not good.The attack of Alamo was a disaster, it weakened the strengh of his army, and enhanced the fighting spirit of America,and when he was captured by houston, he used Texas to exchange of his life.He was not in appor situation at first, or we can say ,his situation was good,USA did not helped the rebellious Lone star republic,this important, If I were him, I would surrounded Alamo in full alert, bot did not attack the fort,this might attract other American to resuce the fort, then i attacked the resuce,if there was no resuce, Alamo finally would fell.And I would not chase Houston with small army, they knew the place well, otherwise I ould set up a chain of forts to reduce their space of activity, and burning their village, ranch and town, arousing the Native American and black slaves to fight against them

A big problem with Santa Anna was a common mistake made by politicians and military people: the belief that you can terrorize people into submission. The theory is that if you show excessive force, they will be afraid of you and stop revolting.

It almost never works. Just ask all of the people who have lived through that; they have generational hatred towards the aggressors.

And at the time, it pushes moderates into strongly opposing the cruel leaders. And this was the case in Texas.

More than any military failure, El Alamo was a public relationship mistake. Without it, it would have been harder for Americans to support the English speaking Texans.

I forgot explain the term of "deomcratic" of this period, meaning the liberty of all white male under the guidence of constitution, so they had the excuse after the abolished of constitution of 1821, the American even stated they only fought against General himself, in order to safeguard the constitution and their right, but not pointing to Mexician.

Yes, "Americans" always make excusses to attack and invade countries in Latin America and the accross the world. 2 million vietnamesses also died because of the fight for "American freedom", you know.

But with the invasion and anexation of half Mexico, the U.S. made a big mistake. Today they have already 50 million Hispanics in the U.S., Most of which are Mexicans, living in the same territories theis country lost long time ago.

the big mistake is not only that, with the taking of the large Mexician land, the balance of North and South was destoryed, and led to civil war,this was why Jackson did not support the Lone Star republic, as well as so many opposed the Us-Mexician war, such as John Adams Junior, the sixth president of USA

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum